depth does not matter.  The air in you lungs that you are using to inflate
them is at ambient pressure, well, unless you jumped off the boat with your
air turned off and went straight to the bottom and can't reach your valves,
in which case you are screwed.

The real problem, as someone mentioned is a.) if you get a hole, the wings
deflate imeadiately and b.) most people tie the bungees tighter that the
recommended amount which makes the OMS test data invalid.

OMS bungee wings are another example of putting a gas can on the front seat,
i.e. the worong solution to a perceived problem that need not exist.
Bungees were required because the wings were so huge.  Instead of putting
bungies, somebody should have asked why are the wings so huge?  Answer,
because we are diving steel tanks with wetesuits.  Better solution...dive
dry or dive aluminum.

Most OMS products are like this.

Trout

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Udo [mailto:udo@hy*.or*]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 10:00 AM
> To: Quest List; Techdiver List
> Subject: Bondage Wings Inflation?!?
>
>
> Hello Friends;
>
> I have a question regarding the controversial bondage wing issue.
>
> Common sense tells us that if you are at depth, because of the
> watercolumn, it would be very difficult, even impossible to orally
> inflate such a wing.
>
> It is, AFAIK widely accepted knowledge. However, OMS promotes, of course
> their bungee wing and has test-results that you can read up on
> http://www.omsdive.com/faq-bc.html#faq-bc
>
> The following is from their website:
> _____________________________________________________
> Tests were conducted in Avalon Harbor on Santa Catalina Island,
> California.
> All tests, other than the drag tests, were done in 24 feet of water. The
> test
> diver and/or the BC's were attached to a mooring weight to allow for
> control.
>
> Oral Inflation*1
> Both BCs were inflated orally without undue difficulty.
> The BC with bands took an average of 16.5 seconds to dump the air put in
> orally.
> The BC without band took an average of 15.0 seconds to dump the air put
> in orally.
> (Conclusion) This test indicated no significant difference between the
> two BCs,
> yet it did confirm that either BC could be inflated orally.
> ______________________________________________________
>
> Now, my question is (disregarding the other very funny test results and
> "comparisons" to the "other" company from Florida), they had NO problem
> inflating the bungeed "technical" wing at a depth of 24fsw. A range
> where the water pressure is slightly below 2 ATM's.
>
> I would like to know what the "test-results" are for depths at 5, 7, 10
> and more ATM's, meaning depths where a technical configuration would be
> rather used than in a shallow environment of 24fsw?
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Udo
>
> P.S.: As you can imagine... I am back from Tokyo.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: quest-unsubscribe@gu*.co*
> For additional commands, e-mail: quest-help@gu*.co*
>

--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.

Navigate by Author: [Previous] [Next] [Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject: [Previous] [Next] [Subject Search Index]

[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]

[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]